Official Luthiers Forum!

Hey all fellow OLFers
Im just working on the second half of an acoustic parlour project, and starting an LP semi hollowbody electric project that was a kit... from J Watkins originally.
I love seeing newly completed guitars here, and Im scouring constantly for guitar pron,,, seeing freshly built instruments is addictive!
One thing you rarely see is the sound quality of these guitars mentioned,, along with all the specs and dimensions -

this is because as I understand it..???
newly made instruments usually sound like crap, most of the time, until thier played in a while - is this correct?

(Im using a bearclaw englemann spruce top for my acoustic project and Im a little nervous because it seemed a little flubby to me when in soundboard form, but as this is my first acoustic... I have no other top tuning experience to compare it with so Im not sure....
I brought it down to a little less than .100 and braced it a little light compared to the Antes plans specs, and it sounds much better braced than when it was a soundboard... Im still taking the braces down however.
As far as the B&S go they were lightly famed koa from Brad Goodman and they ring like a bell!!!! And quite beautifully figured although not out of control in the flame dept. I think they will be spiff~!
Its a personal instrument, and will be played lots ... so Im wondering how long it will take to find out what the final sound will be with it after its finished)

I was wondering what the consensus for aaapproximate burn in time was for these instruments in the experience of others here
(roughly and generally speaking of course,)
before the top starts to impart the sound it will characteristically give?
I realize it will vary with all different instruments and materials...
but roughly?

When I was a kid my uncles bandmate had a beautiful old light flamed LP Std and he would always keep it in front of a stereo speaker when it wasnt being played, with music that was on constantly - even when he wasnt home...
He said this made the instrument sound better for the vibration and tones that would resonate through it - I dont know if this is true... but his guitar always sounded fantastic!!!!
This was the same guy who taught me that while playing guitar, tone came from the fingers.. lol
I realize that there are advocates for tuning tops with sound and vibration, and detractors who say nonsense.... but I thought Id raise the general subject anyway,
Anyhow any opinions on the subject would be appreciated

thanks
Charlie

I'll give you my opinion on this subject.I feel that as wood ages, it gets better tone wise.So if that comes in to play with break-in yes they seem to get better with time.Perhaps the vibration from sound could help in that process as well.But i feel that aged wood cells are the main reason for the change.

Really huh?
So you feel that its more about the age of wood cells rather than the vibratory impact of playing the instrument,,,
Hmm so mabye a guitar built with an aged top, might sound much better freshly built than one thats only been down a short while
is what your saying?
Thanks for your input!
Cheers
Charlie

You said " newly made instruments usually sound like crap, most of the time, until thier played in a while - is this correct?"

This is not the case at all. I think a good instrument will sound good right from the get go and only get better as it opens up.
I don't think a guitar that sounds like crap from the get go will ever be a great guitar

I can't know about how the age of the wood may impact the tonal qualities of the instruments built with it but this idea does always come up with discussing Strads and even pre-war Martins. So I think that what Mark is saying is plausible but I know of no science that supports this claim or disputes this claim.

I can tell you that in my unscientific and humble opinion some instruments can sound great right off the bench but they always seem to sound a little better if not a lot better with time and use (notice I did not say abuse.....). My adi topped guitars seem to take the longest to open up and I play a specific instrument so infrequently that I don't think that I have opened up fully anything that I have built yet.

As for electrics benefiting from time in terms of opening up this is a new one to me and again I have no personal knowledge beyond the many electrics that I have owned and played over some decades. But I honestly never noticed any of them improving with age.

Great question and it's also very cool to see you back on the OLF Charlie my friend!!! Congrats on the guitars that you have in progress too.

I have to agree with Peter here too and I will add that with factory instruments engineered to withstand the abuse of the majority of the bell curve of prospective owners they have a disadvantage, depending on the model and maker, because I do agree that a guitar right off the bench can, at times, sound terrific. Conversely they can sound like crap for a while too...... It's a crap shoot at times....

All I'm saying is time and playing won't heal a "crappy" sounding guitar.

Yes you are right of course Piiman...
I should have phrased that a little better,,, I shouldnt have said sound "like crap"
Im not as eloquent as Hesh (I love to be back Hesh BTW)- or I might have said the guitars "have yet to blossom" right off the bench....
or "improve greatly over the first while of thier life as an instrument"..
It definitely seems as though the sound of the instrument isnt often mentioned initially in these debut threads,,,
and it makes me curious as heck as to what the wood combos impart sonically (in the opinion of the builder)...I wish makers would speak more on this in these instrument introductions,,,


perhaps the builders just expect that someone as experienced as they would know the sounds already, of different instrument types in certain wood combinations, but alas Im a novice - and havent yet benifited from going to amazing guitar shows like Healdsburg or NAMM and the incredible variety in instruments!!
The regional guitar shows I have attended are getting larger and drawing many more luthiers all the time, with far greater variety of building styles, instrument models, and wood combos...
But in music stores where Ive had most of my playing experience, test driving models of different styles and combinations - but they dont seem to vary as much as custom builders do in different woods...


I see what you mean about a guitar that sounds crap off the bench will never sound like a great instrument,,, Ive played alot of "new" acoustic guitars in stores and I realize what you mean there.. Ive even bought brand new acoustic guitars one sounded better every day - one just didnt get any better,,, and cost almost twice what the one that "flowered" did,,,
Cheers
Charlie

This is just my opinion based on my experiences with wood.I have never thought that building with fresh wood was better than old aged lumber.I actually have looked around at salvation army stores and antique shops before for old neck wood.I once built a neck out of some old curly maple bed rails from the 20s that produced a outstanding sounding electric guitar.Probably the best i have ever made.Weather or not the age had anything to do with it i don't now.But i do believe that older wood is more stable than new wood.I do remember late 60s or early seventies that Gibson had a fire and lost most of there old wood.I also noticed that there lp guitars got worse soundwise.And i felt at the time ,that the new wood they were useing was inferior to what they had before.I myself won't build with fresh wood for that very reason.If i could build with old aged wood over fresh, if not for better sound ,for better stability.I also feel that older aged wood won't move around as much after built and less likely to crack.And this is the way i like to build if at all possible.

Charlie I appologize if my comments sounded like an attack, that is certainly not my intent.

Piiman
No not at all - I agree with you completely... It was seriously, poorly worded - Im usually more careful about phasing choices... but I have been off the net for a while and a bit rusty at posting...
I wasnt feeling attacked at all and I wasnt trying to sound defensive if I did come off that way..
Peace Brother
Cheers
Charlie

Some would also argue that the old Martins were tuned for playing concert A 430.6 (middle C 256) and thus being a 1/4 tone off they offer a rich sound.

It's also possible the micro scratches that form in the finish with use and wiping after use allow it to breath and produces better sonic performance. (OK, I'm stretching reality here a bit)

I saw a show on this museum with a large Stradivarius collection that has a musician tune and play each instrument on a regular basis. The sense is the instrument needs to be played to stay in good shape. Perhaps its a link between the maker and instrument and then the musician and the instrument that creates sound that we humans find so appealing. Everything vibrates constantly, perhaps the musical vibrations cause the particle vibrations to align better with time.

Stepping down off his philosophical box...

Found this link may be of interest to some here

http://www.ukuleles.com/Technology/HulaGirlShaker.html

_________________
Formerly JJH

I learn more from my mistakes than my successes

Guitars DO play in, if my measurements mean anything.

Most makers will tell you that the sound changes right from the start; sometimes even just sitting around with the strings on for a few hours will make a noticable difference. But there are longer-term changes as well, and I'm sure that at least some of them have to do with playing.

I suspect that the initial changes, the ones that happen with the guitar just sitting, have to do with the structure adapting to the tension of the strings. Harp players often say that their instruments don't start to sound good until the soundboards pull up a bit: they're built flat, but don't stay that way for long with a ton or two of string tension pulling them upward. I suspect the same is true to a lesser extent of guitars; the wood and glue joints have to 'take up' a bit, and distribute the stress of the strings around more equitably, as it were.

After that you get into the vibration effects. I've tried to do some measurements of what happens to wood when it's vibrated for a long time, but it's actually a sort of tricky measurment to make in some ways, and lots of little problems can crop up. We do know, though, that instruments that have been played a while move more air; the top (at least) loosens up a bit. I have noticed that the pitch of the 'main top' resonance, the one that is like a loudspeaker moving, tends to drop about a half semitone in the first month of playing, and more slowly after that. The spectral peaks associated with that top motion, the so-called 'main air' and 'main top' peaks, also tend to become taller and broader over time, although, again, most of the change is in the first month.

Curiously, there seems to be a 'threshold effect' in this: when I've done artificial 'playing in' experiments using a speaker to drive the top, I can measure changes in the way the thing moves before I can hear any difference. The measurable changes are pretty steady from day to day, but the audible change is more sudden. Hearing can play funny tricks on you.

Old wood tends to be a bit less stiff and less dense than newer wood, owing to the progressive breakdown of hemicellulose, which acts as a sort of 'filler' in the microstructure. Thus age can have some of the same effects as playing, and old wood may need less playing in to sound played in. It's also the hemicellulose that absorbs moisture from the air, so old wood tends to be more stable than new stuff, which helps.

I've only made one guitar that sounded 'bad' to me when first strung. That was my first archtop, and I darn near threw it out in the snow. I'm glad I didn't; it was much better the next morning, and has become a much prized instrument for it's owner, who is a fine professional player.

One thing to remember, though: all the instruments I've checked out have changed in the same way as they were played. The bass, in particular, gets stronger. If you start out with a strong bass, and the trebles aren't clear, it's unlikely that the sound will get 'better' with playing. More likely it will tend to become 'tubby'. Guitars that are a bit 'bright' and 'tight' to begin with often play in nicely, getting a fullar and richer sound over time. A lot depends there on how the instrument is built, of course.

Here the exigencies of production are against them. Factories have to assume that their weakest top is going to get the weakest set of bracing, and tend to overbuild accordingly. A guitar like that will have a long way to go before it loosens up enough to sound full and rich. But even the real boat anchors can get to be not too bad over time. I've seen a couple of old Ovations that have been played hard, and with the thick epoxy on the tops all cracked up, that were not too bad, considering where they started out and the handicaps they're under. Still, with a lot of the really cheap overbuilt stuff you see in WalMart it's a question whether they'll last long enough structurally to ever start to sound decent. It's the old weakest link problem, and with them it's often the glue joint between the bridge and the plywood top (if the bridge was even glued). Plywood has it's own issues anyway, and once the plys have been seperated by a lifting bridge you can't expect much.

Alan, thanks as always for the info.

Were these measurements done on guitars with only spruce tops or cedar/redwood as well? I ask because I've heard it stated as a truism that 'spruce topped guitars will improve with age, but cedar/redwood won't.'

- Flori

I think all guitars change over time (why should they be the only things that never wear out?) but cedar might change less than spruce. I don't have neough data on cedar topped guitars to really be sure about that.

Ok. Thanks for the reply.

I've read that solid-body guitars and basses do open up over time, although a lot slower than acoustic guitars. If that's true, we might expect that the back and the neck play in, too.

I guess they need some way to justify the insane prices of vintage electrics...

_________________
Bob Garrish
Former Canonized Purveyor of Fine CNC Luthier Services

Alot of the pros buy up alot of the older guitars and pay good money to get them.There must be a good reason for that.Did you see Bruces guitar at the super bowl? It wasn't very new looking and he could afford to buy a new one every day if he chose to.

I know folks that keep their guitar on a stand in front of their home speakers just to keep the top moving and help the guitar "age". Many times they will leave the stero on all day while they are at work to keep that box vibrating. So at least some folks think vibrating/playing helps the sound.

_________________
Formerly known as Adaboy.......

The funny thing is when all the British blues players bought late-50's Les Pauls. A lot of people regard the albums made with said guitars as the Holy Grail of early rock tone. Those Les Pauls were only about 11-12 years old at the time and they still sounded great. That supports that they sounded good right away.

Personally, I deeply believe in break-in time. Especially for an acoustic instrument. Another example is some of Johnny Smith's work.... He recorded a lot of it with his brand new D'Angelico, and to me those sounds he got are some of the sweetest I've heard. So I think it also can go both ways. Who knows..... Maybe that Johnny Smith guitar sounds even better now!?
-John